Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

Accept Deny

GoGreenNation news

California lawmakers want to cut red tape to ramp up clean energy but rural communities push back

News Feed
Friday, December 13, 2024

In summary Some rural California communities are resisting efforts to streamline permitting for wind and solar farms and battery storage for environmental or safety reasons. California Assemblymember Buffy Wicks is feeling a time crunch in California’s quest to combat climate change. So she’s trying to speed up renewable energy source construction and storage. “We do have to make it faster and better,”  Wicks said recently. “Government has to work better for people.” Wicks, an Oakland Democrat, was speaking about a Legislative subcommittee field hearing on permitting reform that she held to discuss streamlining renewable energy permits last month. It was part of a statewide tour of several cities to explore permitting solutions for issues such as energy, housing and climate change. The first stop in the Coachella Valley hearing was the Desert Peak battery storage project in Palm Springs, by NextEra Energy Resources. It’s silhouetted against the San Bernardino Mountains, surrounded by a field of wind turbines and next to a Southern California Edison substation. The battery storage center draws power from the Palo Verde nuclear generating station in Arizona and renewable energy projects in the desert, said Pedro Villegas, executive director for political and regulatory affairs for NextEra. Rows of sheds house hundreds of lithium-ion batteries that store power and then feed it into the grid. At full capacity Desert Peak will produce 700 megawatts, enough to power about 140,000 homes.  Facilities like this are key to California’s ambitious climate goals. The state aims to reach net carbon zero — the point at which the amount of greenhouse gasses that humans emit equals the amount removed from the atmosphere — by 2045. In 2022 the California Air Resources Board released a plan to get there. To do that, California has to cut red tape, Wicks said. Industry experts at the hearing said there has to be less duplication of paperwork, increased staffing at regulatory agencies and better coordination between them. Wind and solar farms can displace valuable ecosystems and farmland, while battery storage sites pose fire risks, so the state is facing pushback from rural communities that are ground zero for renewable energy development. Five years ago San Bernardino County restricted new large-scale wind and solar projects on more than a million acres of rural land after residents in some communities complained the projects threatened fragile natural environments and historic sites. “We need to be mindful of creating sacrifice zones in pursuing climate solutions,” Nataly Escobedo Garcia, policy coordinator for the Fresno-based Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability, told the subcommittee. Converting traditional farms to solar farms also sparks opposition, Villegas said.  “Especially in rural areas, some folks have a reaction to turning agricultural lands to solar energy,” he said.  Battery storage has gotten bad press lately, with several high profile fires in San Diego County.  An Escondido battery storage facility caught fire in September, prompting evacuations and closures of nearby schools. In May a blaze at a battery storage site in Otay Mesa burned for two and a half weeks, sparking worry about the safety of the high-powered batteries. In September 2023, a Valley Center energy storage facility caught fire.  Read Next California lawmakers negotiating sweeping package to speed up solar, wind energy August 1, 2024August 1, 2024 Energy experts said the industry has improved its fire safety protocols since those were built. “The facility in Escondido was installed in 2017,” said Scott Murtishaw, executive director of the California Energy Storage Alliance. “That’s ancient technology.”  Despite advances in newer and potentially safer energy technology, lawmakers say efforts to wean Californians off fossil fuels aren’t moving fast enough to avert the effects of climate change. “There’s a huge chasm between the things we say are our priorities and what we are actually delivering in the state” in renewable energy and climate action, said Assemblymember Cottie Petrie-Norris, a Democrat from Irvine. “The No. 1 thing we need to do to accelerate the pace is permit reform.” Read More A stunt or first step? Inside California’s last-minute effort to cut electric bills and streamline clean energy August 30, 2024September 3, 2024 California hits milestones toward 100% clean energy — but has a long way to go August 19, 2024August 28, 2024

Some rural California communities are resisting efforts to streamline permitting for wind and solar farms and battery storage for environmental or safety reasons.

A worker wearing a hard hat and protective clothing walks alongside a row of tall, identical battery storage units under a clear blue sky. The units are aligned precisely on a metal framework, creating a repeating pattern.

In summary

Some rural California communities are resisting efforts to streamline permitting for wind and solar farms and battery storage for environmental or safety reasons.

California Assemblymember Buffy Wicks is feeling a time crunch in California’s quest to combat climate change. So she’s trying to speed up renewable energy source construction and storage.

“We do have to make it faster and better,”  Wicks said recently. “Government has to work better for people.”

Wicks, an Oakland Democrat, was speaking about a Legislative subcommittee field hearing on permitting reform that she held to discuss streamlining renewable energy permits last month. It was part of a statewide tour of several cities to explore permitting solutions for issues such as energy, housing and climate change.

The first stop in the Coachella Valley hearing was the Desert Peak battery storage project in Palm Springs, by NextEra Energy Resources.

It’s silhouetted against the San Bernardino Mountains, surrounded by a field of wind turbines and next to a Southern California Edison substation. The battery storage center draws power from the Palo Verde nuclear generating station in Arizona and renewable energy projects in the desert, said Pedro Villegas, executive director for political and regulatory affairs for NextEra.

Rows of sheds house hundreds of lithium-ion batteries that store power and then feed it into the grid. At full capacity Desert Peak will produce 700 megawatts, enough to power about 140,000 homes. 

Facilities like this are key to California’s ambitious climate goals. The state aims to reach net carbon zero — the point at which the amount of greenhouse gasses that humans emit equals the amount removed from the atmosphere — by 2045. In 2022 the California Air Resources Board released a plan to get there.

To do that, California has to cut red tape, Wicks said. Industry experts at the hearing said there has to be less duplication of paperwork, increased staffing at regulatory agencies and better coordination between them.

Wind and solar farms can displace valuable ecosystems and farmland, while battery storage sites pose fire risks, so the state is facing pushback from rural communities that are ground zero for renewable energy development.

Five years ago San Bernardino County restricted new large-scale wind and solar projects on more than a million acres of rural land after residents in some communities complained the projects threatened fragile natural environments and historic sites.

“We need to be mindful of creating sacrifice zones in pursuing climate solutions,” Nataly Escobedo Garcia, policy coordinator for the Fresno-based Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability, told the subcommittee.

Converting traditional farms to solar farms also sparks opposition, Villegas said. 

“Especially in rural areas, some folks have a reaction to turning agricultural lands to solar energy,” he said. 

Battery storage has gotten bad press lately, with several high profile fires in San Diego County. 

An Escondido battery storage facility caught fire in September, prompting evacuations and closures of nearby schools. In May a blaze at a battery storage site in Otay Mesa burned for two and a half weeks, sparking worry about the safety of the high-powered batteries. In September 2023, a Valley Center energy storage facility caught fire. 

Energy experts said the industry has improved its fire safety protocols since those were built.

“The facility in Escondido was installed in 2017,” said Scott Murtishaw, executive director of the California Energy Storage Alliance. “That’s ancient technology.” 

Despite advances in newer and potentially safer energy technology, lawmakers say efforts to wean Californians off fossil fuels aren’t moving fast enough to avert the effects of climate change.

“There’s a huge chasm between the things we say are our priorities and what we are actually delivering in the state” in renewable energy and climate action, said Assemblymember Cottie Petrie-Norris, a Democrat from Irvine. “The No. 1 thing we need to do to accelerate the pace is permit reform.”

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Related News

Trump's Department of Energy targets California and other blue states for budget cuts, according to internal documents

A major national effort to develop clean hydrogen energy is facing funding cuts — but only in Democratic states.

The Trump administration’s efforts to dismantle environmental protections and roll back nationwide progress toward clean energy disproportionately target California and other blue states, internal documents show.As early as this week, the Department of Energy may pull funding from hundreds of projects — many of which were bolstered by President Biden’s bipartisan infrastructure law and are geared toward climate-friendly initiatives such as solar power, heat pumps, battery storage and renewable fuels, according to a leaked list reviewed by The Times. The cuts could include as many as 262 projects in the DOE’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, of which roughly 80% are based in states that did not go for Trump in the 2024 presidential election. Also on the chopping block are nearly two dozen projects in the Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations, including a major national effort known as the Regional Clean Hydrogen Hubs (H2Hubs) Program, which aims to accelerate the development of hydrogen projects that can replace planet-warming fossil fuels. Those cuts, too, are not applied equally: Of the seven states and regions selected to participate in the $7-billion federal hydrogen project, the four set to be gutted are in primarily Democratic areas. The hydrogen incubators on the cut list include a hub in California; a Mid-Atlantic hub in Pennsylvania, Delaware and New Jersey; a Pacific Northwest hub in Oregon, Washington and Montana; and a Midwest hub in Illinois, Indiana and Michigan. Meanwhile, the hydrogen hubs in red states and regions are safe, the list shows, including a large hub in Texas; a “heartland” hub in Minnesota, North Dakota and South Dakota; and an Appalachia hub in Ohio, West Virginia and Pennsylvania. Officials with the Department of Energy did not immediately respond to a request for comment. California was among 33 applicants for the competitive initiative, which launched in 2021 and ultimately selected seven “hubs” to develop and test various sources of hydrogen. The California hub — known as ARCHES, or the Alliance for Renewable Clean Hydrogen Energy Systems — was awarded $1.2 billion in federal funds, with plans to bring in an additional $11.2 billion from private investors. But it now faces cuts from Trump’s DOE despite the fact that the hub was the highest-scoring applicant among those considered for the federal award, according to sources familiar with the matter. Democratic staff members with the House Science Committee who agreed to speak on background said the findings indicate that the cuts are partisan and ideological in nature — a trend in keeping with other actions from the Trump administration, which has repeatedly targeted environmental programs in California and other Democratic areas in recent weeks. Indeed, cost alone does not appear to be a factor, given that Texas’s hydrogen hub received the same amount of federal funding — $1.2 billion — as California’s, yet the former was not on the cut list. The two states’ projects were the costliest of the hubs, which range from roughly $750 million to $1.2 billion.The total cuts from the DOE’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy amount to more than $905 million, with about $735 million coming from blue states and $169 million from red states, according to a Times analysis. Insiders said the proportions do not reflect overall clean energy investments by red and blue states, with Republican states such as Texas — a clean energy juggernaut — facing far fewer cuts from that office. According to documents reviewed by The Times, only eight Texas projects are on the chopping block compared with 53 in California. House Science Committee staffers cautioned that the leaked lists represent a snapshot in time and that the administration could change its plans before making any official announcements. Already, they said, some Republican representatives and private industry leaders have been successful in stopping certain projects from being canceled. So far, none of their Democratic counterparts have been able to do the same, they said.The cuts could have considerable implications for the nation’s energy future. The seven hydrogen hubs were collectively expected to produce 3 million metric tons of hydrogen each year — reducing 25 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions, or roughly the amount of 5.5 million gas-powered cars. Each of the seven hubs was experimenting with different sources of hydrogen, with California focused on producing hydrogen exclusively from renewable energy and biomass while other hubs worked with natural gas, nuclear power and renewable sources such as wind and solar.Officials with ARCHES said it could be weeks before they have more clarity on the situation. “ARCHES remains committed to working with our partners to establish a secure, reliable and competitive hydrogen ecosystem, creating hundreds of thousands of good-paying jobs and delivering substantial health and economic benefits for Californians,” Chief Executive Angelina Galiteva said in a statement. “We have nothing more to share at this time.”Hydrogen is also not without controversy. Critics have expressed concern that producing hydrogen is water- and energy-intensive, potentially dangerous to transport and expensive. Supporters say it fills in a key gap that electrification alone cannot cover, particularly for heavy industries such as manufacturing and transportation.ARCHES planned to fund at least 37 smaller projects in and around California, including efforts to decarbonize the Port of Los Angeles, as well as plans to install more than 60 hydrogen fueling stations around the state.The status of those projects remains unclear.The president — who received record donations from fossil fuel companies during his campaign — has taken aim at what he describes as “environmental extremists, lunatics, radicals and thugs” in recent weeks, vowing instead to ramp up the production of coal, increase oil drilling and block California’s efforts to transition to electric vehicles, among other actions.

Energy
Climate
Health

‘Playing gods with the cradle of life’: French Polynesia’s president issues warning over deep-sea mining

Exclusive: Moetai Brotherson fears environmental risks of controversial practice and says independence from France must not be ‘rushed’Read more Pacific leaders: in their wordsFrench Polynesia’s president has issued a stark warning over the risks of deep-sea mining, saying it will be allowed in his territory “over my dead body” as he argues the potential for environmental damage outweighs any benefits.Moetai Brotherson’s comments to the Guardian come as countries in the Pacific and elsewhere grapple with whether to extract minerals from the sea floor. Deep-sea mining has not yet begun, but some companies and countries are exploring the practice, which could start in the coming years. Continue reading...

French Polynesia’s president has issued a stark warning over the risks of deep-sea mining, saying it will be allowed in his territory “over my dead body” as he argues the potential for environmental damage outweighs any benefits.Moetai Brotherson’s comments to the Guardian come as countries in the Pacific and elsewhere grapple with whether to extract minerals from the sea floor. Deep-sea mining has not yet begun, but some companies and countries are exploring the practice, which could start in the coming years.“We’re playing gods with the cradle of life – and that’s way too dangerous,” Brotherson said from his office in Papeete.Asked if he would consider deep-sea mining in the future, Brotherson said: “Over my dead body.”French Polynesia is located in the South Pacific Ocean about halfway between Australia and South America. It consists of more than 100 islands, including Tahiti and Bora Bora. Although technically still under French sovereignty, the islands are largely autonomous, with their own government, currency and local laws.French Polynesian president Moetai Brotherson says deep-sea mining is a ‘lure’ for Pacific Island countries. Photograph: Atea Lee Chip Sao/The GuardianUnder French Polynesia’s statute of autonomy, France has ultimate jurisdiction over what it deems “strategic materials”, which includes the minerals found in the seabed. Brotherson’s administration is attempting to get the statute modified.Brotherson was elected in 2023 as a member of the pro-independence Tāvini Huiraʻatira party. He said deep-sea mining was a “lure” for Pacific Island countries, which might see the practice as a “shortcut to a better social and economic situation”.Deep-sea mining involves extracting minerals and metals such as nickel, cobalt and copper from the deep seabed, at depths greater than 200m. These minerals are used in a range of products including batteries, electronics and renewable energies.Proponents say mining the deep sea will support the green energy transition and aid the development of Pacific Island economies. Others argue the practice could have a devastating impact on the seabed, and the long-term consequences for the environment and ocean ecosystems are uncertain.Deep-sea mining has divided Pacific island governments. While some, including French Polynesia and Micronesia, are against the idea, others such as the Cook Islands and Nauru have been actively pursuing partnerships with mining companies as a way to diversify their economies.In February, the Cook Islands signed a strategic partnership deal with China which included cooperation to explore deep-sea mining in the Cook Islands’ exclusive economic zone (EEZ). In March, Kiribati announced it would also be exploring a deep-sea mining partnership with China. Other large states including Russia and South Korea hold exploration contracts, and companies are pushing to begin mining the deep sea.French Polynesia’s presidential palace in the capital, Papeete. Photograph: Atea Lee Chip Sao/The GuardianWhile Brotherson supports the right of the Cook Islands to exploit its deep-sea resources, he doesn’t agree with it.“From our perspective, it’s very disturbing because it sets a precedent and also ignores the fact that undersea pollution doesn’t have boundaries,” said Brotherson, who noted that pollution from mining in the Cook Islands could end up in French Polynesian waters.Dr Lorenz Gonschor, an expert on Pacific regionalism and governance at the University of the South Pacific, said exploration of deep ocean resources was likely to happen in the future.He said as “large ocean nations” the emerging practice gave Pacific islands “tremendous importance in the sense that they will now potentially have huge economic resources”.The French president, Emmanuel Macron, currently supports a ban on deep-sea mining but Brotherson worries that could change with the election of a new president in France.France has complicated relationships with its Pacific Island colonies, which also includes New Caledonia and Wallis and Futuna. New Caledonia saw violent unrest and protests last year sparked by voting reforms proposed by the French parliament.Brotherson has stated publicly that he would consider holding a referendum on independence from France in the next 10 to 15 years.France, however, has shown no indication of moving towards decolonisation for French Polynesia, rejecting calls for independence at the 2023 UN special committee on decolonisation and continuing to maintain an active military presence in the islands. Macron, during his last visit to French Polynesia in 2021, emphasised strengthening the existing relationship.Gonschor acknowledged that independence for French Polynesia would be a “big challenge”, particularly because of its history of economic subsidies and “superficial development” from France. Still, he believed there was a chance of seeing independence in our lifetimes.“From a geopolitical standpoint, it’s unavoidable. In the long run, France won’t be able to afford to keep these overseas colonies.”Brotherson is willing to take a slow path to secure independence “the right way” and start by building French Polynesia’s “economic self-resilience”, which includes a sustainable tourism and energy transition, as well as a move to boost the local agricultural sector and prioritise the digital economy.“I’d rather not see independence in my time if it’s being rushed and done wrong … It would be great if I could see it, but it’s not about me,” Brotherson said. “It’s about the people in the country.”

Energy
Government
Pollution

Brisbane city council blocks plans for fridge-sized community batteries due to loss of green space

Local councillor says federal Labor should not be ‘plonking giant batteries in public parks’ though no other council has refused development applications in the stateElection 2025 live updates: Australia federal election campaignInteractive guide to electorates in the Australian electionGina: the billionaire who wants to make Australia greatSee all our Australian election 2025 coverageGet ourbreaking news email,free app ordaily news podcastThe Brisbane city council has stymied a federal government renewable energy scheme by denying three development applications for community batteries the size of a fridge due to loss of green space.The PowerShaper XL batteries, which range in capacity between 90kW and 180kWh, are about the size of an NBN or traffic signal box – or a fridge. Continue reading...

The Brisbane city council has stymied a federal government renewable energy scheme by denying three development applications for community batteries the size of a fridge due to loss of green space.The PowerShaper XL batteries, which range in capacity between 90kW and 180kWh, are about the size of an NBN or traffic signal box – or a fridge.But development applications for three sites, at an old Scouts Hall in Nundah, a substation in Newmarket and the Penley Street end of Woodbine Street in the Gap, were denied by Brisbane city council. All up, the trio would cost about $2.24m.The batteries were funded through the commonwealth’s $200m communities batteries for household solar program.Energy Queensland won federal grant funding for batteries in 12 communities, including other Brisbane suburbs. It has approval to install them in Coorparoo and Moorooka.The civic cabinet chair for environment, parks and sustainability, Tracy Davis, a former LNP MP, said the council does not support “plonking giant batteries in public parks”.“These bogus claims about community batteries are just a desperate attempt for relevance from a clueless Labor candidate,” she said.“With the election now called, the federal Labor government has been caught out failing to deliver on its own commitment about community batteries and is now trying to blame local councils.”Brisbane’s lord mayor, Adrian Schrinner, was one of the loudest backers of a plan to convert part of one the city’s largest parks into a stadium for the Olympics, despite claims it would significantly reduce one of the city’s biggest green spaces.The federal energy minister, Chris Bowen, said three rejected batteries would help “nearly 1,000 households” power their homes with locally created green energy.In a letter to Schrinner, the federal government asked the city council to either reconsider their opposition or identify alternative sites within the same suburbs that they would support.“The batteries will store solar energy for later use and sharing, support further solar installations in these suburbs, as well [as] contribute to lowering emissions, put downward pressure on household electricity costs and provide network benefits,” Bowen said in a letter to the mayor.Sources have told the Guardian that no other local government body has refused a development application in Queensland and in other states councils had offered alternatives when objecting.Rebecca Hack, the Labor candidate for Ryan – which includes the outer north-west suburb the Gap – said the council’s decision flew in the face of claimed green credentials.“The LNP lord mayor is constantly trying to tell ratepayers how much he cares for the environment,” she said. “Well, he can start right now by putting aside his personal politics and getting these batteries approved, so they can be built as soon as possible.”skip past newsletter promotionSign up to Breaking News AustraliaGet the most important news as it breaksPrivacy Notice: Newsletters may contain info about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. For more information see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.after newsletter promotionEnergy Queensland was contacted for comment.The Queensland Conservation Council’s director, David Copeman, said he would be concerned if the council had adopted a “not in my back yard approach”.“If there was a particular tree which was seen as a character tree or protected under council rules, then obviously you’d relocate, and that’s what we’d expect from appropriate planning, but that should be something that the council and Energy Queensland can work out,” he said.He said planning rules should take into account not just the environmental costs of a project, but its benefits – particularly if the counterfactual means using more coal for longer.Copeman said he is “concerned that the council is delaying the rollout of this important infrastructure”.“Brisbane city council, which has made a lot out of its commitment to net zero … for it to backslide on rolling out renewable energy infrastructure would be very concerning.”Davis said the federal government had known “for months” that the council did not support the sites.“Instead of petty political games, Labor must ensure Brisbane finally gets its fair share of federal road and transport funding and stop funnelling billions of dollars in additional investment into Sydney and Melbourne,” she said.The PowerShaper XL is about 700 x 900 x 2,000mm and weighs 600kg.

Energy
Government

Ohio utility retracts energy-efficiency plan despite potential savings

Another proposed energy-saving program is on the chopping block in Ohio. Duke Energy Ohio quietly dropped plans late last year to roll out a broad portfolio of programs that would have boosted energy efficiency and encouraged customers to use less electricity during times of peak demand. The plans, which would have…

Another proposed energy-saving program is on the chopping block in Ohio. Duke Energy Ohio quietly dropped plans late last year to roll out a broad portfolio of programs that would have boosted energy efficiency and encouraged customers to use less electricity during times of peak demand. The plans, which would have saved ratepayers nearly $126 million over three years after deductions for costs, were part of a regulatory filing last April that sought to increase charges on customers’ electric bills. The move came after settlement talks with other stakeholders, including the state’s consumer advocate, which opposes collecting ratepayer money to provide the programs to people who aren’t in low-income groups. State regulators are now weighing whether to approve the settlement with a much smaller efficiency program focused on low-income neighborhoods. The case is the latest chapter in a struggle to restore utility-run programs for energy efficiency after House Bill 6, the 2019 nuclear and coal bailout law that also gutted the state’s renewable energy standards and eliminated requirements for utilities to help customers save energy. Studies show that utility-run energy-efficiency programs are among the cheapest ways to meet growing electricity needs and cut greenhouse gas emissions. Lower demand means fossil-fuel power plants can run less often. Less wasted energy translates into lower bills for customers who take advantage of efficiency programs. Even customers who don’t directly participate benefit because the programs lower peak demand when power costs the most. Energy efficiency can also put downward pressure on capacity prices — amounts paid by grid operators to electricity producers to make sure enough generation will be available for future needs. Due to high projected demand compared to available generation, capacity prices for most of the PJM region, including Ohio, will jump ninefold in June to about $270 per megawatt-day. “At a time when PJM is saying we’re facing capacity shortages, we should be doing everything we can to reduce demand,” said Rob Kelter, a senior attorney for the Environmental Law & Policy Center. Since 2019, the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio has generally rejected utility efforts to offer widely available, ratepayer-funded programs for energy efficiency. Legislative efforts to clarify that such programs are allowed under Ohio law have been introduced but failed to pass. In the current case, Duke Energy Ohio, which serves about 750,000 customers in southwestern Ohio, proposed a portfolio of efficiency offerings that would have cost ratepayers about $75 million over the course of three years but created net savings of nearly $126 million over the same period.

Energy
Waste

A court ordered Greenpeace to pay a pipeline company $660M. What happens next?

Experts called the verdict “beyond punitive.” The organization plans to appeal and has already filed a countersuit in Europe.

A jury in North Dakota ordered Greenpeace to pay more than $660 million in damages to Energy Transfer, the company behind the Dakota Access Pipeline. Energy Transfer sued Greenpeace in 2019, alleging that it had orchestrated a vast conspiracy against the company by organizing historic protests on the Standing Rock Sioux reservation in 2016 and 2017.  In its lawsuit, Energy Transfer Partners accused three Greenpeace entities — two in the U.S. and one based in Amsterdam — of violating North Dakota trespassing and defamation laws, and of coordinating protests aimed to stop the 1,172-mile pipeline from transporting oil from North Dakota’s Bakken oil fields to a terminal in Illinois. Greenpeace maintained it played only a minor supporting role in the Indigenous-led movement.  “This was obviously a test case meant to scare others from exercising their First Amendment rights to free speech and peaceful protest,” said Deepa Padmanabha, a senior legal adviser for Greenpeace USA. “They’re trying to buy silence; that silence is not for sale.” Legal and Indigenous experts said the lawsuit was a“textbook” example of a “strategic lawsuit against public participation,” known colloquially as a SLAPP suit, a tactic used by corporations and wealthy individuals to drown their critics in legal fees. They also criticized Energy Transfer for using the lawsuit to undermine tribes’ treaty rights by exaggerating the role of out-of-state agitators. The three Greenpeace entities named in the lawsuit — Greenpeace Inc., a U.S.-based advocacy arm; Greenpeace Funds, which raises money and is also based in the U.S.; and Greenpeace International, based in the Netherlands — are now planning their next moves, including an appeal to the North Dakota Supreme Court and a separate countersuit in the European Union.  As part of a previous appeal to move the trial more impartial court, Greenpeace submitted a 33-page document to the state Supreme Court explaining that the jurors in Morton County, North Dakota — where the trial occurred — would likely be biased against the defendants, since they were drawn from the same area where the anti-pipeline protests had taken place and disrupted daily life. The request included results from a 2022 survey of 150 potential jurors in Morton County conducted by the National Jury Project, a litigation consulting company, which found 97 percent of residents said they could not be a fair or impartial juror in the lawsuit. Greenpeace also pointed out that nine of the 20 final jurors had either “direct personal experience” with the protests, or a friend or family member with direct personal experience. Deepa Padmanabha, a Greenpeace staff attorney, outside the Morton County Memorial Courthouse in North Dakota. Stephanie Keith / Greenpeace Pat Parenteau, an emeritus professor at the Vermont Law and Graduate School, said the chances that the North Dakota Supreme Court will overturn the lower court’s verdict are “probably less than 50 percent.” What may be more likely, he said, is that the Supreme Court will reduce the “outrageous” amount of money charged by the Morton County jury, which includes various penalties that doubled the $300 million in damages that Energy Transfer had originally claimed. “The court does have a lot of discretion in reducing the amount of damages,” he said. He called the Morton County verdict “beyond punitive. This is scorched Earth, what we’re seeing here.” Depending on what happens at the North Dakota Supreme Court, Parenteau also said there’s a basis for appealing the case to the U.S. Supreme Court, based on the First Amendment free speech issues involved. But, he added, the move could be “a really dangerous proposition,” with the court’s conservative supermajority and the precedent such a case could set. A federal decision in favor of Energy Transfer could limit any organizations’ ability to protest nationwide — and not just against pipelines.  Amsterdam-based Greenpeace International, which coordinates 24 independent Greenpeace chapters around the world but is legally separate from them, is also fighting back. It countersued Energy Partners in the Netherlands in February, making use of a new anti-SLAPP directive in the EU that went into effect in May 2024. Greenpeace International is only on the hook for a tiny fraction of the more than $600 million charged against the three Greenpeace bodies by the Morton County jury. Its countersuit in the EU wouldn’t change what has happened in U.S. courts. Instead, it seeks to recover costs incurred by the Amsterdam-based branch during its years-long fights against the Morton County lawsuit and an earlier, federal case in 2017 that was eventually dismissed.  Greenpeace International’s trial will begin in Dutch courts in July and is the first test of the EU’s anti-SLAPP directive. According to Kristen Casper, general counsel for Greenpeace International, the branch in the EU has a strong case because the only action it took in support of the anti-pipeline protests was to sign an open letter — what she described as a clear case of protected public participation. Eric Heinze, a free speech expert and professor of law and humanities at Queen Mary University of London, said the case appeared “black and white.”  “Normally I don’t like to predict,” he said, “but if I had to put money on this I would bet for Greenpeace to win.” While Greenpeace’s various entities may have to pay damages as ordered by U.S. courts, the result of the case in the EU, Casper said a victory would send an international message against “corporate bullying and weaponization of the law.” Padmanabha said that regardless of the damages that the Greenpeace USA incurs, the organization isn’t going away any time soon. “You can’t bankrupt the movement,” she said. “What we work on, our campaigns and our commitments — that is not going to change.” In response to request for comment, Energy Transfer said the Morton County jury’s decision was a victory for the people of Mandan and “for all law-abiding Americans who understand the difference between the right to free speech and breaking the law. That Greenpeace has been held responsible is a win for all of us.” Nick Estes, a professor of American Indian studies at the University of Minnesota and member of the Lower Brule Sioux Tribe who wrote a book about the Dakota Access Pipeline protests, said the case was about more than just punishing Greenpeace — it was a proxy attack on the water protectors at Standing Rock and the broader environmental justice movement. He said it showed what could happen “if you step outside the path of what they consider as an acceptable form of protest.”“They had to sidestep the actual context of the entire movement, around treaty rights, land rights, water rights, and tribal sovereignty because they couldn’t win that fight,” he said. “They had to go a circuitous route, and find a sympathetic court to attack the environmental movement.” Janet Alkire, the chair of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, said in a March 3 statement that the Morton County case was “frivolously alleging defamation and seeking money damages, designed to shut down all voices supporting Standing Rock.” She said the company also used propaganda to discredit the tribe during and after the protests.“Part of the attack on our tribe is to attack our allies,” Alkire wrote. “The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe will not be silenced.” This story was originally published by Grist with the headline A court ordered Greenpeace to pay a pipeline company $660M. What happens next? on Mar 21, 2025.

Energy
Indigenous
Water

Suggested Viewing

CHAO CARBÓN DOCUMENTARY

Mr. Aes Gener is a greedy mega-entrepreneur in the energy business. Through his story we get into the dirty business he has done in Chile and the world with coal, while we see, through archival footage, the damage to people and nature of this obsolete and polluting fossil fuel.

Energy
Pollution
Activism

Total Disaster

Armed with realistic bird puppets, trickster environmental activists pretend to be oil company Total—staging a satirical press conference to introduce "RéHabitat," a program to rescue animals from the East African Oil Pipeline by relocating them to “more sustainable” habitats. Using humor and mischief, they expose a deadly ecological disaster in a zany effort to help #StopEACOP.

Activism
Energy
Animals

100 Short Stories

100 Short Stories is a collage ranging from the serious to the humorous. This original and engaging documentary tackles opinions regarding governance, public policy, and questions what are sound ideas socially, environmentally and culturally in today’s society. It’s about predatory Capitalism, renewable energy, stopping the frakers, and contemporary life in Atlantic Canada. Created by Neal Livingston, a well-known Nova Scotian documentary filmmaker and artist – as well as renewable energy practitioner, developer and policy advocate – who calls the film partly autobiographical.

Culture
Energy
Documentary

A Low Carbon Future for China’s Furnace Cities

China’s economic development and rapid urbanization has led to a dramatic rise in energy consumption due to excessive heating and air-conditioning causing carbon emissions of immense proportions. China’s government has set the ambitious target of reducing CO2 emissions by 40–45% by 2020 against the 2005 baseline. A UK/China-funded team working on how to solve the problem in some of the most extreme climate regions in China. The team discovers groundbreaking solutions using computational-fluid-dynamics simulations.

CO2
Energy
Climate

THE SPRAYER

In the land occupied with the sprayers army, no one has the right to grow any kind of plants either in public or private. So many of the people and soldiers do not even know how a plant grows or looks like, until one day one of the soldiers finds a seed buried deep down in the dust and his curiosity is just the beginning of something extraordinary, something big, something revolutionary.

Plants
CO2
Animation

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.